• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

News Graphs

Which graph is more accurate?

  • #1

    Votes: 10 66.7%
  • #2

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • OTHER

    Votes: 4 26.7%

  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
Not surprising I guess that the majority of the outlets are on the left side of the 1st graph.
 
OT - If you haven't seen this before, check it out. Zappa's last live performance. It's BS until about 5:30, but then...



This was around the time that Vaclav Havel had decided to appoint Zappa as "Cultural Ambassador to the Czech Republic", a move that spurred Howard Baker to threaten to remove all financial help from the Bush administration, thus the appointment, albeit a symbolic one, was rescinded.

So I'm happy to hear the "BS" that comes before the music, it's all part of the love that the Czech people had for FZ.
 
Which news graph do YOU think is more accurate?

#1

View attachment 67234358

#2

View attachment 67234359

1 is certainly more accurate, but I think its pretty questionable. For example, I would not consider Vox as being "Garbage Left" as sites like the Huffington Post are far more liberal. BBC news is more neutral, Forbes I think is probably more neutral than Right, The Economist while a very high quality source leans more right. Real Clear Politics should be in the mixed quality section. The Atlantic should be higher than it is. WND should be in the Poor Quality section.

Really, even the first graphic is kind of crap.
 
WTH are you talking about?
I'm accusing you of bias.
Well, then prove that I am because an unfounded accusation is of no merit. Just be sure not to use any of the lines of doing so that are described here: Click here.

If you aren't biased why didn't you present all sides of the argument?
-- Structure of Arguments

Prove that I am biased. You have yet to present any sound founding for your assertion that I am biased.

As noted above, prove that I am biased because an unfounded accusation is of no merit. Just be sure not to use any of the lines of doing so that are described here: Click here.
 
The New American is only listed in the second graph. The only way Infowars can be classified as "freedom" would be that it illustrates the freedom to be a total nutcase.

Alex has made millions and may soon lose that plus in the courts
 
Hmmmm, I find that interesting, any possibility you can clarify, maybe with either an example or a demonstrable working model that you say represents their methodology? (I'll take it at face value and look for myself to see if I notice similarities)

Not really, unfortunately. This was many years ago. I can link to a fairly recent event, and there was the photoshop debacle of 2006, but neither are very good examples.
Suffice to say Reuters was the first news organization I ever noticed switching terms for similar acts, depending on who performed them. For example, certain people would "establish" something, while others would "claim" it, even though there was no major difference in credibility between them. Certain people would be "controversial" even though they were only controversial to the side who didn't agree with them, while people holdng equally controversial viewpoints for the other side would not be so labelled.
Today these are standard things to look out for as a news consumer, but back then it was new to me, and noticably more subtle than when mainstream or private journalism does the same thing today.
 
This was around the time that Vaclav Havel had decided to appoint Zappa as "Cultural Ambassador to the Czech Republic", a move that spurred Howard Baker to threaten to remove all financial help from the Bush administration, thus the appointment, albeit a symbolic one, was rescinded.

So I'm happy to hear the "BS" that comes before the music, it's all part of the love that the Czech people had for FZ.

I'm sorry I used "BS" there - the intent was to point anyone clicking the video to the spot where Frank actually starts playing.

Frank's comments during the first few minutes are very much worth taking in, especially given the social and political situation in the country where he was performing and the fact he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer a year prior. I've watched the whole thing several times.
 
This is (I think) a slightly better version of chart #1:
https://imgur.com/gallery/iPLkz

I don't agree with it all. Note that I don't personally include the editorial sections of, say the WSJ or WaPo when I consider whether they are biased sources. I'm just considering the reporting.
 
I'm sorry I used "BS" there - the intent was to point anyone clicking the video to the spot where Frank actually starts playing.

Frank's comments during the first few minutes are very much worth taking in, especially given the social and political situation in the country where he was performing and the fact he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer a year prior. I've watched the whole thing several times.

I haven't been able to find the tape recording since we moved in 2014 but the year before that, Frank was exploring the idea of running for President. He went on KLI 640 AM in L.A. and did an interview and took calls, and I was lucky to talk to him.
 
Vox as ‘garbage left?

I don’t think so.


...

That's a very good example of Confirmation Bias on your part. Nothing wrong with that, as long as we all recognize that it exists in us all, and recognize when it happens. I find myself questioning my own perceptions all the time, due to my own confirmation bias.
 
That's a very good example of Confirmation Bias on your part. Nothing wrong with that, as long as we all recognize that it exists in us all, and recognize when it happens. I find myself questioning my own perceptions all the time, due to my own confirmation bias.

It has nothing to do with confirmation bias.

Vox has some pretty impressive writers with well thought out policy positions.

It’s left leaning, certainly.
But is it the left equivalent of Breitbart or the Daily Caller? No.
 
I haven't been able to find the tape recording since we moved in 2014 but the year before that, Frank was exploring the idea of running for President. He went on KLI 640 AM in L.A. and did an interview and took calls, and I was lucky to talk to him.

He would have been good for the 1A. I'm really not familiar with any other political stances he held.

I count myself lucky to have seen him perform once - Overnite Sensation / Apostrophe era. I had a couple of other opportunities to see him which I regret having passed on. He had so much material and I was really only into maybe half of it, so I was afraid he might just play what I wasn't into.

Dweezil is coming here later in the year:
https://www.dweezilzappa.com/pages/tour-dates

and I'll be checking that out. Saw him play on the Experience Hendrix tour last year with a bunch of other guitarists.
2017 Experience Hendrix Tour ? The All-Star Concert Event of the Year
 
He would have been good for the 1A. I'm really not familiar with any other political stances he held.

I count myself lucky to have seen him perform once - Overnite Sensation / Apostrophe era. I had a couple of other opportunities to see him which I regret having passed on. He had so much material and I was really only into maybe half of it, so I was afraid he might just play what I wasn't into.

Dweezil is coming here later in the year:
https://www.dweezilzappa.com/pages/tour-dates

and I'll be checking that out. Saw him play on the Experience Hendrix tour last year with a bunch of other guitarists.
2017 Experience Hendrix Tour ? The All-Star Concert Event of the Year

He was pretty much a left leaning libertarian, but I am going to make a guess that he was pragmatic about his libertarian ideas.
 
It has nothing to do with confirmation bias.

Vox has some pretty impressive writers with well thought out policy positions.

It’s left leaning, certainly.
But is it the left equivalent of Breitbart or the Daily Caller? No.

The part I highlighted above, is another example of confirmation bias.

They write articles and OpEds that match, or at least mirror very closely, your own positions therefore you feel that the writers are impressive and what they write are well thought out policy positions.

There are people on here that think the same way about Breitbart and The Daily Caller.

Vox doesn't even try to have an objective view point, nor do any of the ones on that list on the far right. I don't agree with exactly where each organization is positioned though, because I feel that RT should be so far to the right of that chart that they would no longer even be on the chart.

I also think that Vice News is a little too far to the left on that chart - even though they are a very left leaning group, they do work at having an objective point of view, although it is left of center.

And I completely disagree with having Blue Lives Matter on the chart at all, as well as Black Lives Matter. Neither are a news organization, nor is Cato Institute, or MoveOn.org.

I also think that The Hill is too far to the left on that chart, but Vox? They're pretty close to where they should be.
 
Last edited:
He was pretty much a left leaning libertarian, but I am going to make a guess that he was pragmatic about his libertarian ideas.

That would have been my guess.

Funny, that's the way I would describe myself. I just don't like to use the libertarian label generally because there are ideas associated with that label that I hate. Knee jerk anti-state and corporatist stuff, mostly. I don't believe the "market" works without rules and oversight. I also believe in a reasonable social safety net.
 
That would have been my guess.

Funny, that's the way I would describe myself. I just don't like to use the libertarian label generally because there are ideas associated with that label that I hate. Knee jerk anti-state and corporatist stuff, mostly. I don't believe the "market" works without rules and oversight. I also believe in a reasonable social safety net.

It just boils down to pragmatism.
There are a great many libertarians who are true believers to the point of ridicule.
But it seems like we might miss the quieter voices of the less sensational but more rational libertarians who accept that some of their goals are very aspirational, and tied to an elevated level of enlightenment which does not exist yet.

Examples: We can eliminate all corporate regulation once mankind demonstrates that they have the superior ethics to make such a thing possible. Therefore, they want to work to see ethics raised to that level.
They demand privatization of as much infrastructure as possible, provided that private ownership does not create an environment where corporate fiefdoms infringe upon the rights of natural persons, therefore they work to promote the rights of natural persons over corporate power.

I've heard libertarians like Penn Jillette admit that some of what they aspire to is unworkable in present day, but it doesn't mean that they cease working toward it. It just means that they're willing to cast a vote for a candidate and then try to implement their ideas at a more local level instead.

As a LIBERAL, I know that some of what liberalism aspires to is pie in the sky. I just try to support the parts of liberalism which are feasible. I'll compromise with a conservative if I know that we have enough common ground.
 
It just boils down to pragmatism.
There are a great many libertarians who are true believers to the point of ridicule.
But it seems like we might miss the quieter voices of the less sensational but more rational libertarians who accept that some of their goals are very aspirational, and tied to an elevated level of enlightenment which does not exist yet.

Examples: We can eliminate all corporate regulation once mankind demonstrates that they have the superior ethics to make such a thing possible. Therefore, they want to work to see ethics raised to that level.
They demand privatization of as much infrastructure as possible, provided that private ownership does not create an environment where corporate fiefdoms infringe upon the rights of natural persons, therefore they work to promote the rights of natural persons over corporate power.

I've heard libertarians like Penn Jillette admit that some of what they aspire to is unworkable in present day, but it doesn't mean that they cease working toward it. It just means that they're willing to cast a vote for a candidate and then try to implement their ideas at a more local level instead.

As a LIBERAL, I know that some of what liberalism aspires to is pie in the sky. I just try to support the parts of liberalism which are feasible. I'll compromise with a conservative if I know that we have enough common ground.

I think you're right. I can work toward a common solution with anyone who comes to the table willing to work out a mutually agreeable deal. Extremes don't appeal to me.
 
I think you're right. I can work toward a common solution with anyone who comes to the table willing to work out a mutually agreeable deal. Extremes don't appeal to me.

That's what we all need to be willing to do. ALWAYS.

These last few years we've been paying too much attention to the extremes and ignoring the vast majority of moderates.
Moderate conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc all need to recognize and entertain the fact that we do have common ground, common values and common goals.
 
That's what we all need to be willing to do. ALWAYS.

These last few years we've been paying too much attention to the extremes and ignoring the vast majority of moderates.
Moderate conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc all need to recognize and entertain the fact that we do have common ground, common values and common goals.

Most do. There are some single issue and ideological zealots that won't compromise, but they aren't the majority. Unfortunately the media blinds us by only showing the nut cases, making lots of people think that anyone on the other side is nuts.
 
Back
Top Bottom